Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's paper, the majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Dole, said, and I am quoting him, concerning a Federal Government shutdown, ``I don't believe we should shut down the Government. I think it would be a mistake. I do not believe it should happen. I don't believe it will happen.'' I think the majority leader is probably right. The Congress would be insane or close to it to shut the Government down 10 days before Christmas. A lot of folks who are not Federal employees and are nowhere close to Federal employees would regard that as the act that deserved the Scrooge Award of 1995. But will the Congress overlook the District of Columbia and allow it the short continuing resolution that I am certain will come for Federal employees? My prediction is you will probably let the Government stay open until we get back from the recess. Mr. Speaker, I am here to explain that for the District, that does almost nothing, because we are not a Federal agency. We are a city of almost 600,000 people, and you cannot run a complicated city, down on its luck, with 2- and 3-week continuing resolutions. You then have to calibrate how much money you spend on the basis of for example, if it is 2 weeks, one-fourteenth, so you do not overobligate. With the city in the financial condition it is in, that should be unthinkable. There is a very special congressional responsibility, therefore, to release in the next continuing resolution the District's money, raised solely in the District, until such time as an appropriation bill has been signed. I would hope that an appropriation bill will be signed before December 15. But, very frankly, our appropriation is stuck on stupid. It is stuck up here on controversial issues having nothing to do with the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia. So I cannot guarantee that by December 15 our appropriation will be signed. I have a bill that would allow the District to spend its own money until such time as an appropriation bill is signed. That way we would have the flexibility to run the city. Otherwise, we are put in the position where, if unfunded mandates such as AFDC have to be matched on time, as they do, and a payroll has to be paid on time, as it does, we could overobligate. The Congress has been most critical of the District for what it says has been overobligation in the past. The last thing the Congress, I am sure, would like to do, is put the District in the position where it is between the hardest rock and the worst hard place, where it had unfunded mandates and funded mandates that it had to meet and had no way to meet them because it can only spend a certain percentage of its funds. The Washington Post said in an editorial recently: House Speaker Gingrich, Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations Chairman Jim Walsh and other Congressional leaders who seek to bring financial order to this city should see the importance of separating the local functions as well as the responsibilities of the Control Board and chief financial officer from Federal stalemates. If their concern for the District's financial stability is genuine, they should press for immediate enactment of a continuing resolution, as well as for protections against any more situations like this. Shutting the District down, when its own money is here only because the Congress requires it to come here, not because the Congress provides it, is an outrage. I ask this body, if and when such time should come that a continuing continuing resolution is needed to keep Federal agencies going, and if that continuing resolution is a short- term continuing resolution, that you allow the District to spend its own money--and about 80 percent of the money in our appropriation is raised by hard working D.C. taxpayers in the District of Columbia--and that you allow that money to be spent, so that the District will not be thrown into worse financial shape than is already the case. That is not what this body desires. This body has been working beneficially with the District. So has the Financial Authority. We do not need another setback. I acknowledge that the District is responsible for many of its own problems, but the fact is, it is trying to get hold of those problems now. The District should not be thrown into further disarray because the Congress goes into short-term continuing resolutions, overlooking the difference between HHS, the State Department, and HUD and the District of Columbia. The District is a living, breathing city that has suffered tremendously throughout this period. It is the innocent bystanders for whom I speak now, not the Mayor, not the City Council and not the Delegate, but the hard working residents who pay taxes in the District of Columbia. Free the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is day 16 of my countdown to December 15. I will be here every day we are in regular session. Next Wednesday, there is a hearing on the D.C. Fiscal Protection Act. I am here to protect the District of Columbia from another shutdown on December 15. I am here to protect 600,000 residents who are not parts of a Federal agency but tax-paying citizens of the Capital City of the United States, who got shut down in the last shutdown, even though they had no part in the struggle between the Congress and the Executive. I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], who is a cosponsor of the D.C. Fiscal Protection Act which will get its hearing next Wednesday. The act has been well named; fiscal protection because the District of Columbia needs to be protected from any further blows to its fiscal health. Surely I do not need to tell my colleagues that the District is in delicate condition. There is a control board which is seeking to help the District return to financial solvency. A shutdown of the District for the second time simply puts the city in the hospital. The Congress wants the opposite. If it indeed expects the opposite to occur, it must take action to make sure there is no shutdown. Mr. Speaker, when the Federal Government shut down, for most Americans there was no direct hit, even though there was very direct inconvenience; and where there might have been something approaching a direct hit, the Congress took action to protect Americans and, I might add, to protect Members from the wrath of Americans, such as the exceptions that were passed to allow workers on Social Security to come to work. The District of Columbia, on the other hand, was hit in three direct ways, three direct hits. First, the District Government was shut down. Second, District residents had their vital services wiped out and could not receive them. Finally, Federal employees who work in the District had to remain home. Let me say a word about Federal employees today. I have not talked about them as much in past days. This is a home of the Federal Government. Of course, it follows that our largest employer is the Federal Government and, therefore, we have a disproportionate number of employers, about 60,000, who were forced to stay home on forced administrative leave. These are some of the most stable employees. We are trying hard to keep them. Imagine what they might be thinking now: ``At least if I lived in the suburbs, if they shut down the Federal Government, my vital services would still be available to me.'' Please help us keep our tax-paying residents. If we have to shut down, give us an exception for D.C. employees. Let me say what has happened to these employees. The effect on them is simply intolerable. Because of the District's financial crisis, they have already given back 12 percent of their income to the city last year and took 6 furlough days. This year our unionized employees will give back 3 percent to the city and have 6 more furlough days. Would my colleagues like to tell folks like that that they might risk not getting their pay or that they probably will get their pay but they have to stay home and let backlogs of work build up? What about my cops, the cops who are now working straight time, not overtime, on the weekends and at night? These sacrifices are being made by D.C. employees at a time when the American standard of living has been stable or going down for two decades. Front-line services, from trash collection to day-care centers that happen to be in libraries, were closed because libraries were closed. There was a plethora of services that were closed for business, vital services, services that keep the residents alive and going. One of the most vital actions that was closed down, however, had to do with the multiyear plan which is due here in early February, the plan that is central to reviving the District. If we missed that deadline, there will be howls throughout this body. Virtually all Members directly involved recognize that something has to be done, and I thank them all. I thank the Speaker for recognizing it and telling me that he thought something special should be done for the District if we shut down the Federal Government. I thank Mr. Davis for the hearing coming up and for his cosponsorship of my bill. The gentleman from New York, [Mr. Walsh], our subcommittee chairman, recognizes it as well. He is now with the President heading a bipartisan delegation, as he is in this House, Chair of Friends of Ireland. I applaud that. I have no objection to his going and applaud opportunities for Members to work together like this in a bipartisan line. I hope he comes back not only as a friend of Ireland but as enough of a friend of the District of Columbia so that we can guarantee that the city will not be closed down December 15.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is day 17 of the countdown to December 15. I am here every morning to try to see to it that if you shut down Federal agencies on that date, you do not shut down an entire city, the District of Columbia. This, of course, was one of the all-time unintended consequences of the last shutdown. If we shut Federal agencies, the District of Columbia automatically shuts down. Mr. Speaker, these are apples and oranges. The District is a living, breathing city that delivers vital frontline services. A Federal agency is a creature of the Federal Government that delivers services that local communities find important but not vital to their day-to-day survival. Please, let us delink these two entities. I have yesterday introduced an independent CR for the District of Columbia, so that if on December 15 another shutdown should occur, the District would be free from it. I have spoken to the Speaker, who appeared to be sympathetic to my concerns; the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis, has cosponsored this special CR for the District of Columbia. The shutdown of the District of Columbia was particularly galling and unnecessary, because 85 percent of the money in our appropriation was raised in the District of Columbia from District taxpayers. It should not be up here in the first place. But if it happens to be up here and caught in a shutdown, the very least that the Congress can do, in all decency, is to say, ``Here, District of Columbia, you are entitled to spend your own money to keep your own city open.'' That is all I am asking. As to the Federal payment, some of it would remain, of course, locked up here, and yet we need that cash very much. Bear in mind that the Federal payment is a PILOT, a payment in lieu of taxes, thank you, no gift from the Federal Government, but a payment owed us. Nevertheless, that would be treated in the normal way. Remember the city which I represent. It is second per capita in taxes paid to the Federal Government, yet it is the only jurisdiction that flies the American flag that does not have full home rule and full self-government. All of you, make up and read the morning papers. You know about the condition of the District of Columbia. You know it now has a control board just to borrow, and that it is virtually insolvent. Surely the Congress does not mean to do more damage to the capital city of the United States. What is that damage? Imagine, the District of Columbia of course, has to pay employees even though they do not work, because they are forced onto administrative leave. There is that lost productivity, some of it completely irrecoverable. These 3- or 4-week CR's do not allow a complicated city to operate, because a city cannot overobligate. If you are obligating on a basis of one-fourteenth, because you have a 14-day CR, and yet you have unfunded mandates like Medicaid or AFDC, you are put in an untenable position. And of course, if the District were overobligated, as we have seen, the Congress would be the very first to object and to criticize. The District of Columbia has taken its hits and it knows it deserves its licks for what it has not done to keep its city in good shape. The very least the Congress, which has been profuse in its criticism, should do is to make sure it does no further harm to the District. I have a D.C. Fiscal Protection Act, in addition to the CR for December 15, that would mean that whenever we get to the end of a fiscal year, the District could spend its own money until an appropriation cleared the Congress. Our appropriation is stuck up here on provisions added undemocratically by Members unaccountable to the voters of the District of Columbia. We may not be able to get it out for weeks and weeks. Do not hold the District hostage. I represent a lot of innocent bystanders. Whatever you think of the Mayor or the city council or the delegate, remember these high taxpaying citizens who deserve a whole lot better. The last time the District got lost in the shuffle, even though the District was right here ``in your face.'' This time, you will not be able to miss us, because I will be here every day on the countdown until December 15.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a continuing resolution which would give the District the authority to obligate only District revenues to carry out activities authorized in fiscal year 1995 at a rate of operations capped at $4.994 billion, the spending level agreed to by conferees on the fiscal year 1996 D.C. appropriation bill. Specific oversight by the Financial Authority to monitor obligations and spending would also be required. In the midst of a serious financial crisis, the District has been particularly damaged by the Federal Government shutdown and would continue to be destabilized by a series of short-term continuing resolutions. Short-term CR's would place the CFO in a particularly untenable position. He is required to avoid over-obligation at the same time that he would have to apportion obligations in small amounts to fit very limited continuing resolution authority. Faced with unfunded Federal mandates, for example, AFDC, Medicaid, and the complexity of payments that a city must make, a series of short-term CR's would only lead to disarray. I am particularly concerned that hard-hit District residents, who have endured this serious fiscal crisis, will be put through additional hardship because of a struggle within the Federal Government. It has already become difficult to hold on to D.C. taxpayers. With an already crippling fiscal crisis, the last thing the Congress should do is to make it worse. Passing a continuing resolution for D.C. is the appropriate thing for Congress to do.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would reduce the minimum number of Board of Trustees of American University from forty (as defined in the University's Act of Incorporation) to twenty-five. American University President Benjamin Ladner and the Board of Trustees have asked me to introduce this corrective measure. American University was incoportated by Act of Congress on February 24, 1893. Its charter contains a provision setting the minimum number of the Board of Trustees at forty. On May 5, 1995, the Board of Trustees of the University passed a resolution authorizing the Board Officers and the President of the University to obtain the necessary approval from the General Board of Higher Education, the United Methodist Church and the U.S. Congress to reduce the number of trustees to twenty-five. Both the General Board of Higher Education and the United Methodist Church have approved this change. Only approval from the Congress remains. The Board of Trustees believes that a board minimum size of twenty- five will permit the University to fully engage in its fiduciary responsibilities and grant greater flexibility to hold meetings and conduct business as a fully constituted board. It has simply become too cumbersome for the University to conduct its business while retaining forty trustees on the Board. [[Page E 2239]] I urge my colleagues to support this corrective measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if we ask the average American what got shut down 25 days ago, They will say that the Federal Government got shut down 25 days ago. Well, I am here to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the city in which the Congress does its business got shut down completely 25 days ago. The city got shut down with its own money. Mr. Speaker, because of limitations on home rule, our entire budget has to come here, although 85 percent of that budget is raised in the District of Columbia from District taxpayers. The District got shut down with its own money, although the District of Columbia is second per capita in taxes paid to the Federal Treasury among the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Suppose you represented people who paid that much tax and got shut down because they got caught in the middle of a debate that had nothing to do with them? I think you would be pretty mad, and so am I. Mr. Speaker, I am asking on day 18, as we move toward December 15, that whatever quarrels the Federal Government and the President get in among themselves, that you not shut down my city again. This is a city in the midst of an awesome financial crisis, and the most that the Congress of the United States has been able to think to do to it is to allow it to be shut down. Our appropriation is caught up here, 85 percent of that money, of course, being our own. What the Federal Government contributes is not a grant but is only a payment in lieu of taxes, because we cannot build on land occupied by the Federal Government and because we cannot build very high because of limitations put on us by the Congress of the United States. So who in the world would shut down people who are already in the midst of a financial crisis, except people who are unaccountable to the people in that city, the 600,000 people that I represent? Of course we, like the Federal Government, had to pay our employees, because they were put on forced administrative leave; and, thus, we have to pay for all of that lost productivity. Mr. Speaker, because of the fiscal crisis, these employees had already given back 6 furlough days and had already given back 12 percent of their pay because the city is in crisis. This city is not a Federal agency. We are demanding that we be treated like a city and not like a Federal agency--like a city that pays its own way. Mr. Speaker, I am asking that if we get to Day Zero and another continuing resolution is necessary, that D.C. not be put in another short-term continuing resolution. Do you realize what it is like to have to calibrate on a 2- or 3-week basis so that you do not overobligate your own money? My continuing resolution will say look, you can spend your own money; we are holding back part of the Federal payment. That is the least you can do if you want to insert onto our appropriation stuck up here on provisions you want to insert onto our appropriation that have been undemocratically put there by Members unaccountable to the voters of the District of Columbia. Free the D.C. appropriation. The chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Davis has cosponsored an independent D.C. continuing resolution with me. Congress has already done damage, incalculable damage in shutting the District down. All I am asking now is if you cannot get our appropriation out, and I would not bet on getting it out by December 15, that the Congress not do more to hurt the innocent bystanders. Those are the people who pay the highest taxes, barring none, if you combine local taxes and Federal taxes in the United States. Those are the people who contribute more to the Federal Treasury than Members who represent any jurisdiction in the United States, except New jersey. We are second in Federal taxes only to New Jersey. So if you are not from New Jersey, you have to get behind the people I represent, get way behind them. Let us keep our city open. Can you imagine that the Federal Government was delivering mail, but we could not pick up the trash in the District of Columbia for a week because of a dispute between the President and the Congress? That is your business. Stay out of our business. Let us keep our city open. Do us no harm. Do not get caught in the middle. Shut down the Federal agencies if you must. That is your money. Do not shut down D.C. We have already paid for our city. [[Page H 13662]]

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have focused on the No. 7. Now focus on the No. 4 for Medicare, Medicaid, then education, and the environment. President Clinton has explained that the agreement means, ``nothing will be agreed to unless all elements [[Page H 13361]] are agreed to,'' and he said, ``I cannot sign a budget that devastates'' these programs. Another drop-dead date, December 15, looms just before Christmas. We should not even think about further brinksmanship with Federal employees. A week of shutting down the financially devastated District has taken a new, catastrophic toll inflicted by this body. A short continuing resolution makes it impossible to calibrate payments to avoid overobligation in running a complex city. The D.C. appropriation will probably not come to the floor this week. Yet 85 percent of that appropriation comes from D.C. taxpayers. Free the 85 percent that is our money.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in praise of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson, as a human being, as a colleague, and as a Member. The gentleman is rare. I rise in praise of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] as well. These Members have worked so beneficially and fruitfully with me and many in my district. I rise in gratitude to the Speaker, who has appointed a task force, which has diligently worked with us on a home rule basis. If Members had conducted themselves as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has during what I have come to call the Gunderson round, this would not be a polarized Congress. The gentleman has been an example of problem solving that the entire Congress needs to emulate. The gentleman has tried desperately for a win-win situation, and has virtually made it. The gentleman has respected local democracy in the District of Columbia. The gentleman has spent countless hours, not only with District officials, but with individual residents whose name no one will ever know. In the very beginning, when the Speaker's task force was appointed and the notion of vouchers, call them vouchers, call them scholarships, got in the press, the residents of the District of Columbia, I can tell you, were up in arms, and they called and they screamed, and they wanted to know more about vouchers than they wanted to know about the financial authority being imposed on them. I think that is because there has been a referendum in the District of Columbia, and in that referendum, a program of the kind that is a small part of the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] was voted down overwhelmingly. I ask Members of the other side what you would do if there had been a referendum in your district and people voted this down, not because of money, but because overwhelmingly my constituents believe it is the District public schools that must be improved. So in the end we agreed to a compromise that was a private scholarship fund for private schools, and anybody could apply. For us, the compromise was that we knew some of our students who were best and most conscientious would leave, but that was the compromise. It was in Mr. Gunderson's own Republican conference where there was an insistence that there not be only private scholarship funds, which all of us would try to raise money for, but Federal funds as well. Mr. Chairman, this is not an ordinary issue. Each side feels itself bound by principle. This has been for me a principle. That is why I have looked for a [[Page H 11732]] compromise all during this time. This is a collision of principles, and pejorative comments on either side do not truly respect the principles that are at stake here. And on top of the principles involved in private funding, we have religious schools. The good news is I have been meeting on a daily basis and will continue to meet on a daily basis. The Gunderson proposal is too important to throw away. I refuse to give up on this bill. I regret it has for many of us, as in a Greek tragedy, a fatal flaw.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us puts this Member in an untenable position. The bill has gone through needless water torture. There are amendments that openly invite confrontation and a possible veto--that can only be solved in conference. There are cuts so large that it will bring the District crashing down around this body one day while it is in session if no accommodation is reached in conference. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I cannot honestly stand here and say to my side that more of what the District wants it will get if this bill goes down in final passage. Mr. Chairman, to the other side I say, they cannot get anything more because they have gotten virtually everything they want, including a devastating cut, the most severe antichoice provision in the United States ever enacted in a bill, and now an appropriation in a bill, and much more. Mr. Chairman, neither side has anything more to gain by stopping this bill and putting the District of Columbia at risk. We have heard much about the D.C. government during this debate. It has been castigated as if the District were not reflective of the problems of urban America. It has been castigated as if Congress itself had not put a financial authority in place which has not had time yet to begin the vital and indispensable work of reform. We have heard nothing about what the District has done, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the subcommittee, could and should have taken some credit for. I was forced to get on the floor with that record: the establishment of a financial authority; twice as many positions saved as the Congress required; a torturous cap that has brought services to barely breathing. Mr. Chairman, this morning's paper talks about an example of what the District has done all on its own. ``This fall, the University of the District of Columbia collapsed five colleges into two and 60 departments into 18.'' A study, Apple Seed Center, a group of conservative lawyers, has put out a report indicating that the Federal payment should not be $600 million, but over $1 billion. Most of all, if I could continue to have my colleagues' attention, in my [[Page H 11733]] city $2 out of $3 are earned by nonresidents. Leave aside the notion of a commuter tax, we do not have any State that could recycle some of that money back the way they do in Syracuse and Philadelphia and elsewhere. Most of all, my colleagues have not heard about the innocent bystanders. When people come before this Congress, they talk about the D.C. government. They do not talk about the people I represent. Mr. Chairman, the Washington Times a few days ago wrote an article about the people I represent. I want to leave Members with what it said so that they will know that what I have said about the cut must be rectified. ``Deteriorating Services Drive Out Middle-class.'' Mr. Chairman, let me just read a little bit of what they say. ``I am giving up,'' said Gail Barnes, a 14-year District resident and advisory neighborhood commissioner in Ward 4. ``I don't want any more potholes beneath my knees, street lights that are out, trees that are untrimmed.'' Mr. Chairman, another part, ``The latest essential service to blink out is repair of street lights and traffic signals. The District owes Potomac Electric Power Co. about $20 million for light repair and citywide electric bills * * * Since its contract with PEPCO ran out September 25, the city has tried to handle repairs itself, but the Department of Public Works has been unable to keep up with the demand.'' Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Speaker has called PEPCO to say, ``Hold on. Somehow the money will get to you,'' but if that is not a case study in desperation for this city, I do not know what is. ``Hundreds of police officers,'' the article says, ``have left the department in recent months. Arrests have plummeted as overall crime has risen 11 percent compared to the first nine months of last year.'' We are told that, ``* * * the police lack paper to copy reports, new tires and parts for cruisers and scout cars.'' We are told that, ``* * * during the summer, five of the city's 53 fire companies were closed each day in order to cut costs, and during the past week, six of the city's 16 ladder companies were out of service because of mechanical problems.'' Mr. Chairman, any Members who think this city is not in a state of crisis should read their own Washington Times. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Members have gone through having to suffer through a bill that is not their own and has nothing to do with them. This bill puts the District in an untenable financial position. It will not be improved if we vote it down.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to cite a personal remark. I have called the name of the leader of the subcommittee. I have made no personal remarks.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have made no invidious remarks. The one thing you have taken from me is my vote. Let me speak for my city. The real crime is that this bill undercuts the financial authority that this body set up. Against the advice of the financial authority, this bill says, you must impose severe cuts on the city. A tough financial authority stepped forward and said, we have imposed cuts on the city. Now they said, give us only time enough so that we can also impose management reforms on the city, then perhaps we will go back to cuts. And still cuts have been extracted from our own (DC) budget. This appropriation bill did not follow the bipartisan lead that was the lead of the Speaker and the authorizing committee this year. There were four pages of invasions into home rule. They were finally gotten off with the help of the leadership. Now there is a cut that will bury the city. Now the financial authority which the city has accepted has been ignored. Now the District is being treated like a Federal agency. My colleagues, I represent 600,000 breathing Americans who have been loyal to their country. In their name, I ask that they be treated with the respect each and every one of you have insisted for your constituents.

Ms. NORTON. I will not yield, sir. point of order

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a first for many Members of this body. It is the first time the Republicans have carried an appropriation for the District of Columbia since home rule. It is the first time that freshmen have had to vote on a bill at all for the capital of the United States. I hope they are bewildered by the exercise, because they have come here, of course, for national, not local matters. I had hoped that this would be the year of bipartisanship, and I had every reason to believe it might. The District is in a financial crisis that is known around the world. And every Member of this body bears a responsibility, wherever the fault lies, to help raise the city again so that it can proudly claim to be the capital of this Nation. I had every reason to hope for bipartisanship in the tone set by Speaker Gingrich and in my work, especially with the chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis. I faced a personal crisis, when my city had all the signs of going down the drain. Somebody had to speak up. At some political risk to myself, I said to the residents of my city, there must be a financial authority. Do not fight it. You need it in order to borrow, and you need it because we must revive the finances and management of the D.C. government. And in a bipartisan way and with the help of the administration, we worked on the financial authority bill. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] worked fruitfully and productively with us as well. The bipartisanship continued when the District did not have funds so that it could put its share for Federal highway money. The majority helped get us the votes and that bill was passed, also with the help of the administration. Pitifully, the Speaker, the Speaker's office called PEPCO last week to say, do not turn off the lights in the District. Money is coming. We will see to it. Yet I am told, there is plenty of money down there somewhere, Eleanor. And the cops cannot get their cars out of the garage and yet the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] says, I do not know where it is but it has got to be there. And, of course, he imposes a huge cut on the District knowing full well that he himself cannot point to where the money is. That is folded into this bill. Thanks to the Speaker, we were able to negotiate most of the home rule and statutory items off the bill; and then of course we came to the Committee on Appropriations, and Members began to add such items to the bill. It is those items that make it impossible for this bill to come forward in the bipartisan way that other bills involving the District this year have come forward. Some amendments are more gratuitous than others. Mr. Walsh regularly puts in an abortion amendment, but for some reason, he ceded his amendment to a Member that would amend the DC code on abortion. That has never been done in 20 years of home rule, and one wonders why he would not have exercised the necessary leadership on this instead of driving votes away on a statutory amendment on abortion, coming from the Congress, when every single jurisdiction in the United States has a local option on this controversial issue. Where was his leadership then? Where was his leadership on Hostettler, when he comes forward knowing that there is already a domestic partnership amendment in the bill that keeps D.C. from spending its money and demagogically comes forward and says, let us enact it into legislation. Where is your leadership on that, Mr. Walsh? The tragedy here is the Gunderson matter which has been negotiated endlessly and wonderfully with the District. Yet a voucher is in that bill that will drive votes from my side, and I can tell you from your side, as well, off the bill. And then just to be truly partisan [[Page H 11623]] about it, you go to the list of agencies that have been granted exemption from DC property taxes, none of which should have been granted, and you say, let us pick out our political favorite to get. Let us pick out the NEA. Pick them all out. Give us all 27, if you are serious, and you are not serious.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the overriding theme, if there is any, of the 104th Congress, appears to be devolving power back to the localities. More than any measure that has come on the House floor today, this is the real test of whether the majority means it. This, of course, is an utterly redundant provision, because it is already in the bill. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] raises the ante by saying let us amend the D.C. Code on an appropriations bill. It is an insult to the District to amend our law and all and certainly in this way. This is a gratuitously self-indulgent amendment because it rises to do what is already done in the body of the bill. It is one of those easy targets that makes you say, ``Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?'' District of Columbia residents feel deeply about bigotry. It may have to do with the fact that many of us are people of color. In my district, most of my residents are Baptists and Fundamentalists. But, in the District, there is a consensus that gay men and lesbians ought to be able to register and purchase health care if they happen to be D.C. government employees, and this bill has a de minimis effect because it can help only D.C. government employees. So my constituents of every religious background and of every persuasion on the question of gays and lesbians support this bill as applied to gay men and lesbians. [[Page H 11659]] I want you to know who the chief beneficiaries of this bill are given our demographics: Two elderly people living together, a disabled person who cannot live alone, two sisters or brothers living together, a grandchild and a grandparent living together, a mother and a grown daughter living together. That is who you would deny if you deny us the right to pass this bill which power should devolve to pass. Who supports this provision? the National Council of Senior Citizens, the District of Columbia Nurses' Association, the Gray Panthers, Concerned Clergy of D.C., Churchwomen United, Disciples of Christ. We support this bill. This is our jurisdiction. Let us do with our lives and with our constituents what you might not choose to do. Give us our full rights as American citizens to recognize all of our citizens. Do not vote for this amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I recognize for most Members, this is just another bill. But I ask Members to recognize that for me, this is my life and my city, and your Capital City. Mr. Chairman, the bill puts me in the worst of positions. The Mayor cannot support a bill that would wreck the city. My city council, which has gathered courage, now finds it did not do any good. The Congress has second-guessed it. And I do not know what I am going to recommend as Members come up to me and say, ``Eleanor, what shall we do?'' And I do not know, I must say to you, whether it would make a dime's worth of difference, whatever I recommend. This is an appropriations bill, my friends, so let us talk about money. I have heard in this debate about ``your money.'' Let us be clear whose money this is. More than 80 percent of the money in this bill is the hard-earned money raised in the District of Columbia from District taxpayers. This is not your Federal payment alone. This is our money, and we cannot get our money without coming to a national legislature to get it. I hope Members are proud of that, because, if they are, they should be ashamed of that. This is not a Federal agency. This is a self- governing jurisdiction of the United States of America. [[Page H 11640]] My greatest regret about this bill is how close it came to being a bipartisan bill. I do not know why four pages of home rule violations were put on the bill, but I do know that the Speaker stepped forward and said ``Perhaps we can work this out,'' and they got off the bill. I said, ``Oh, my goodness, we really are going toward bipartisanship.'' I appreciate that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] cooperated in that procedure and has said that he never indeed intended to have the bill, nor did the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] intend to have the bill full of home rule matters that were unrelated to the appropriation. At the end of the day, however, this bill has in fact invited other home rule violations, of a kind that only excite those who would ordinarily vote for the bill. By allowing on to the appropriation these amendments, the majority has made it impossible for me to do what I certainly desire to do, and that was to get votes on my side of the aisle. It is very hard to ask a Member to vote for you when you are asking a Member to vote against his own principles on something like abortion, especially when the amendment on abortion of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] was expected, and we have an escalated version. It makes it very difficult for all of us, and especially for me. Whose money is this? Let us be entirely accurate. This is a Congress that is particularly excited about taxes. I bet there are few Members in this Congress who know that there is only one State that pays more taxes to the Federal Treasury per capita than I do. And yet I stand before this body representing 600,000 District residents, and I cannot vote for the bill that is before us, the bill that has my money, my taxpayers' money in it, far more than any Federal money in it. We are No. 2 per capita. If you are from New Jersey, my hat is off to you, because you pay more taxes per capita to the Federal Government than I do. The rest of you, get in line behind me. Nor am I here as an apologist for my own city or city government. You have not heard me say ``This is a wonderful city government; why don't you vote for it?'' We know the city government has problems. The city government has in fact agreed to the acceptance of a financial control board. How many times did I go before my own people and publicly say, ``Reform your own government, or the Congress may do it.'' So to beat up on the District government because it is not yet reformed is particularly gratuitous, since we have just put in place a financial authority to assist it in reforming. The authority just got there, and got there only in time to cut. It is said, ``Hey, why doesn't the government look wonderful yet?'' The government looks about the same way it does in Syracuse and in Newark and in San Diego and Atlanta, and it needs reforming, and you have in place a mechanism to do that reform. And you are not respecting that mechanism when it says if you cut beyond what they are already cut, you will cut into the blood and guts of the District government and bring it down. I do not use those words lightly. I am more accustomed to going to the District government and saying ``Please, cut yourself before they cut.'' We have heard a lot about the District and its responsibility. I do not know why we did not hear more about congressional responsibility. We have not heard a peep about $5 billion in unfunded pension liability handed to the District government when home rule was given. The Congress used to pay for the pensions out of its pocket because it had access to the Treasury. It gave us that unfunded pension liability and said ``Now you pay for it out of your pocket.'' That is $300 million a year we pay so our cops can get their pensions. And the Federal Government and the Congress have not responded when we have said ``Help us out of this, and you will help our budget and help our bond rating.'' We have not heard them tell us about Medicaid, where we pay the entire cost, county and State, of Medicaid; and not one Member comes from a city that would be left standing if that were the case. And we have not heard them say a thing about State prison systems, and we are the only city in the United States that pays the full cost of State prisons. Medicaid and the State prison system, as much as anything, these are what has driven the District close to insolvency. When one talks about unfunded Federal mandates, if they hurt your State, they hurt your entire State. The budget cuts are not cuts I oppose on their face. The financial authority said ``Give us time to do the reengineering before any more cuts.'' Why that would not be respected is completely puzzling to me. For 2 years in a row, the District simply cannot take it off the top. That is what we are asking them to do. We are saying take it from the police department, that cannot get the cars out of the garage. We have had to raise the retirement age of the police department and cut the pay, so the police department is completely noncompetitive. We cannot recruit police. That is a danger to public safety. This shows callous disregard for innocent bystanders, the people who pay the highest taxes per capita in the United States, except for New Jersey. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] had a case to make on the merits, and he has failed to make it. Let me make it quickly. The reasons that he did not need this reckless cut, the reasons that he did not need these amendments, are the following: On his watch, there has been the establishment of a financial authority. On his watch the District has eliminated 3,600 jobs, not 2,000 as the Congress demanded. On his watch, the authority has gotten 750 additional positions from the District. On his watch there has been a 12-percent give-back from District employees and 6 furlough days. On his watch there has been the initiation of a baseline audit. On his watch there has been a reduction in spending from $3.9 billion to $3.3 billion. On his watch, the District has made requests that are in fact going through for Medicaid savings. That should have been enough to get this bill passed within putting on this bill amendments that have chased away those who devoutly wanted to support it.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise as a lawyer who spent most of her life as a constitutional scholar to say that it is inappropriate to cite the Constitution of the United States for taxation without representation. It is inappropriate to cite the Constitution of the United States for overriding the consent of the governed. To do so is to defile the Constitution and to defame Madison, its principal author.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. [[Page H 11654]] I make these remarks before asking the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] to consent to a better idea. This Trojan horse, I am afraid, would be of no use to the district, if the gentleman is sincere and there is a way to help us. The comments, however, especially of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], give evidence to the fact that this is an unvarnished case of political retribution. They have not sought to hide it. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], when he offered the amendment, went down the list of positions that NEA had taken, among them that we hear: That of course is a union. We know how the other side of the aisle loves unions. It does not want anything to do with the District and certainly not with helping the District. If so, the gentleman would have given the District the discretion to get these property taxes from all 27 of these people, none of whom should have had property taxes at our expense. My people pay higher property taxes, not because of the NEA but because of 27 people whom you gave, you gave the right to be exempt from property taxes from people I represent. The gentleman says that these people are not about education anymore and that they have gone off their charter. Have you looked at the legislative agenda of the American Legion? Is that what you want to do, go down and see what each of these organizations are doing and put a political test into these proceedings? This is not a good precedent to set. This was defeated in committee. There is a better idea. Give the District the jurisdiction, do not give it to us piecemeal. You do not intend to give us any more at all, do not give us one. Give us all, give us access to our property taxes from all 27 of these folks.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, may I express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Jim Hansen of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands, Subcommittee Ranking Member Bill Richardson, Resources Committee Chairman Don Young, and Ranking Member George Miller for moving this bill through the Resources Committee in an expeditious manner. On April 6, [[Page H 11389]] 1995, I introduced H.R. 1508, the National Children's Island Act of 1995, at the request of the District of Columbia. This bipartisan bill calls for the transfer of Heritage and a portion of Kingman Islands, currently an artificial landfill and dumpsite, from the National Park Service to the District for the purposes of creating a cultural, educational, and family-oriented park. This is the essential initial step in a process that, by law, will require other local and Federal review steps before the project proceeds. The District is pressing this legislation at this time of local financial crisis. The park will create 1700 new full and part-time jobs, 51.1 percent of which will go to District residents. Likewise, the park will generate approximately $8.9 million in annual sales tax revenues, and earmark a share of its revenues for educational grants, scholarships and other programs for District youth and businesses. The city council approved this project by a vote of 11 to 1. The project is fully privately funded with no cost to the District or the Federal Governments. As a result of improvements made in committee, a Federal level environmental impact statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act will be conducted with review and approval by the National Capitol Planning Commission. Again, I thank the Resources Committee for its bipartisan leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today, and urge all Members of the House to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, many are new to Congress this year and the Republican majority is altogether new in having the obligation to get 13 appropriations through the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia appropriation is the only one remaining. The District of Columbia appropriation is a PILOT, a payment in lieu of taxes, like those in virtually every State in the Union. It is not a grant. We are paid because the Federal Government preempts much of the prime land in the District and we cannot develop on that land and because we cannot develop above a certain height. Unlike last year, there is plenty of reason to vote for the District budget this year. We had a very severe struggle last year, but on the merits this year, the budget went through appropriation hearings without controversy. Why? Because there is a control board in place that keeps things in check, because employees have given a whopping 12- percent give-back, and because the District has downsized 20 percent, twice as many positions as the Congress asked for. Yet, there are propositions before the subcommittee mark this afternoon that no Republican and no Democrat can embrace. Some of these propositions would force law on people, even though the Congress is not accountable to those people, because it would force changes in local law. It is surely a principle of this House that only through the ballot can basic law be changed. Only those who can reject or embrace what you do have a right to have law made for them. The governing theme of the 104th Congress, my colleagues, is devolving power back to the localities. You cannot have any credibility with that theme if you usurp local power here in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, many in the majority find much in this nine-to-one Democratic city with which to disagree. Yes, you are Republicans, you are in the majority. Most of us are Democrats. Surely you would not want to force Republican change in the manner of congressional dictators. That surely cannot be your desire. To be sure, the Constitution gives you some powers over the District of Columbia, but James Madison did not mean for you to overturn local laws. He meant you to guard the Federal presence. This is a Democratic city, so who can be surprised that there is rent control? Some would take back, overturn rent control, and put their own version of decontrol place instead of our version of decontrol. Some would privatize our schools. The Mayor wants to privatize some of our schools. Many on the schoolboard want to do that. If we are not doing it fast enough for you, wait a while. This is a democracy. This is America. Mr. Speaker, for 20 years there have been high-profile controversial restrictions put on our appropriation, but never has the Congress tried to change mainstream council legislation. I ask you in the name of democracy not to do it today. What is being proposed is a radical departure from basic democracy, an invasion into the very body of home rule itself. I ask you not to do it. I ask you to be true to your own principles. Put yourself in my place. Put yourself in the place of the people whom I represent. They do not have full help-governing powers. Please leave them with what self-government powers they have. Please remember this afternoon in the subcommittee, in the full Committee on Appropriations, and when our budget comes to this House, that almost all of that budget is raised in the District of Columbia. Above all, remember that this is America, that you are Americans, and that we are Americans. The Speaker himself came to a town meeting in my district. It was a gutsy and important and historic moment, and he said before all the people I represent, I do not intend to micromanage the affairs of the District of Columbia, I do not intend that home rule be overturned. I believe the Speaker. I ask you to follow the Speaker. I ask you to respect the rights of the people I represent. This is the first time that the District of Columbia budget will come before a Republican majority in 20 years of home rule. The country is watching; not just my constituents. The entire country is watching. Will the Republican majority force its will on a Democratic city that is powerless to fight back, that has no voting representation on the floor of this House, that has no representation whatsoever in the Senate of the United States, though we are fourth per capita in income taxes paid in this country among the 50 States? Please respect our rights. Please treat the people I represent as you and your constituents would be treated.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the District is fortunate to have as one of its leading publications the 104-year-old Washington Afro-American. The Afro is older and more revered than many of our monuments. It is a community voice of great credibility. Were it not for the Afro, some of the most important matters in the black community would go entirely uncovered. A newspaper does not live as long as the Afro has served this city unless it is serving a unique and special purpose very well. Every time the Afro publishes, it engages in an act of leadership. I would like to enter into the Record an example of that leadership. It is an editorial entitled ``Meeting with Newt.'' Many of my largely liberal Democratic constituents were suspicious when Speaker Gingrich asked to appear at a town meeting in the District. What did this unprecedented appearance by the Republican Speaker mean? How should he be received by residents and officials? Would he help us or hurt us? The Afro editorial tried to help D.C. residents and officials answer these legitimate questions. I urge Members to read the editorial and I submit it now for the Record. Meeting With Newt D.C. residents who have an eye on the future are well aware of how important it is to pay attention to the Party that is in power. The Republicans now control both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Democrats only control the White House. Therefore, it would be political suicide for D.C. residents, who themselves are mostly members of a minority race, to pay attention to just one party. It is therefore with understanding and good old-fashioned common sense that we welcome the town hall meetings now being held by the Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R- Ga.). We applaud Cong. Eleanor Holmes Norton and D.C. Mayor Marion Barry (both Democrats) and even the members of the City Council and the Superintendent of Schools Dr. Franklin Smith, who sat on the platform with Mr. Gingrich at Eastern High School last week. To our knowledge, this is the first time a Speaker of the House of any party affiliation has taken the time to come out in 90 degree weather and listen to, not talk down to D.C. residents. And to his credit, Mr. Gingrich did just a little talking and a whole lot of listening. As more of these town meetings are held, we urge leaders of organizations, other ministers, and people who both live and work in this city, to come out and tell the Speaker not just our problems but some of our successes. He needs to know what is working; he needs to hear from families who for generations have had an interest in this city; he needs to know that there is a good side, as well as a bad side, to what the Republicans have planned for this city--and he needs to [[Page E 1786]] know D.C. residents are depending on him to turn his party around and treat D.C. residents the same way they treat their folks back home. Now is not the time to be quiet. Now is the time to speak out. Speaker Newt Gingrich has opened the door. The next town hall meeting should be held at the air conditioned convention center so that the minds of speakers can concentrate on what they have to say and not the heat. Congresswoman Norton and Mr. Gingrich have a good thing going here. Let's just hope it is not all talk.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for his explanation. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my reservation, I ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia to explain the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his strong support and his work in the committee on this and other bills for the District. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, we are bringing to this House a bipartisan bill that has the unanimous support of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and that will significantly increase the revenue of the District entirely from private resources. H.R. 2108, the District of Columbia Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995, allows for the release of dedicated tax funds that are not part of the District's general fund revenues for preliminary work for a new convention center, and the lands acquisition and site cleanup for a new sports arena. This bill is here today only because the projects themselves will be financed largely by private parties and businesses. If the financial crisis of the District of Columbia is to be cured, and not merely temporarily stayed, it will take financial ventures such as these to grow the city's economy and create new opportunities for residents and businesses. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again express my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, for his collegial and expeditious consideration of my bill and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the same. Their efforts show how much can be accomplished when Members reach out in genuine bipartisan resolve to solve problems. Thank you very much.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his work in finding an appropriate way to release funds for the resumption of street repair work in the District at a time when its financial condition does not allow the city to fund its matching share. My deep gratitude goes as well to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who quickly prepared a hearing and brought forward the information that was necessary to arrive at a viable bill. The work, advice, and counsel of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the full committee ranking member; and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, were indispensable to the bill, and they have my deep appreciation as well. Mr. Speaker, in the Senate I am grateful to Senator John Warner who has already led that body to the passage of a bill similar to the one before the House today, and to Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and highway administrator Rodney Slater who have rendered extraordinary assistance. May I say also that I do not believe this bill would be on the Floor today without the indispensable assistance of Speaker Newt Gingrich. [[Page H 8014]] Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps not surprising that a city close to insolvency would have difficulty making its matching share to obtain Federal funds. At the same time, my colleagues know that this body has taken definitive action to permanently repair the malfunction that led to the District's financial problems. In April, you approved the establishment of the financial responsibility and management assistance authority, whose work has only recently begun. What H.R. 2017 does in large part is not only to allow the highway funds that have already been set aside to be used, but the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania also does what the financial authority would have done had it not been just established to correct the problems and prevent them from arising in the future. Mr. Speaker, this waiver does not differ substantially from waivers previously granted to 39 States, except that it poses more stringent conditions on the District than on those States. Like those States, full repayment must be made. Unlike those States, the District must make a cash repayment of its waived funds, while waivers for other jurisdictions have allowed repayment from future highway fund apportionments. Unlike those States, the District is required to establish and maintain a separate dedicated revolving fund account to maintain its matching share. The GAO, the Highway Administration, and the D.C. Financial Authority, are given specific responsibilities to see that all the requirements of this bill are carried out. Mr. Speaker, the other difference from waivers routinely granted in other States is that the District's waivers are granted individually by the bill at the end of the fiscal year rather than as part of a group of States at the time of the reauthorization of a highway bill. Mr. Speaker, the individual waiver to the District is more than justified by three circumstances. First, this city is totally dependent on the Congress in time of emergency because under the Constitution, the District of Columbia is not a jurisdiction of any State, but is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress. Other large cities and localities experiencing difficult times would turn on their States to develop a plan like that outlined in the Chairman's bill before you. Second, the financial condition of the District of Columbia is due in large part to the fact that it must fund State, county and municipal functions that no large city could meet on its own today. These unfunded mandates include programs that cities do not fund at all, including medicaid and prisons. The many unfunded Federal mandates financed solely by District of Columbia residents, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, are funded entirely by businesses and residents of a city with less than 600,000 people, with a rapidly diminishing tax-paying population. Mr. Speaker, it is easy enough to blame the District for its predicament, but fairness requires that the Congress look at the entire picture and ask yourselves whether any large city in the United States today could have carried this heavy State, county and municipal load alone without going under. Mr. Speaker, finally, this waiver is surely warranted because the District of Columbia is our Nation's capital. Whenever the District has sought the same democratic rights as those enjoyed by citizens of the 50 States and the four territories, our citizens have been told that we cannot have full democracy because we live in the Nation's capital. This justification does not meet the high standards of democracy we have set for ourselves and have insisted upon throughout the world. Until the District of Columbia status is satisfactorily resolved, however, Congress must assume some of the responsibility that attaches to such a weighty denial of democracy. Mr. Speaker, this is particularly the case for roads. The streets involved are mostly gateway streets traveled far more by 20 million tourists and commuters than by District residents. To miss another construction season is to condemn your constituents as well as mine to unsafe and uncomfortable road conditions. It would be unseemly at best for Congress to force the District to forego 2 years of already apportioned general highway funds while the Congress continue its work in a city collapsing around it. Mr. Speaker, to its credit, the full committee and subcommittee have chosen a responsible course. The Chairman's version is a risk-free bill for the Congress because repayment is guaranteed, and because the bill contains structural changes to keep the situation from arising gain. Mr. Speaker, may I once again say that I appreciate the tremendous help we have received on this matter from Speaker Gingrich, minority leader Gephardt, Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, ranking member Mineta, ranking member Rahall, the Regional Delegation and the Clinton administration. I ask for approval of the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes- Boehlert amendment to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The proposed riders cripple the ability of EPA to protect our environment. This is not just a problem for EPA. The effects of this legislation will fall mainly on our constituents. Exxon and Exxon Shipping paid $250 million in penalties for the Valdez spill. This was the most devastating environmental disaster of our Nation's history. How can we even consider legislation that would immunize those who may be responsible for future atrocities? Supporters of H.R. 2099 claim that the riders remove unnecessary costs on American industry, but industries such as fishing and tourism depend on clean, swimmable, and fishable waters. There is agreement on the need for environmental reform, but this bill is a back-door attempt to repeal environmental statutes against the public interests and all without adequate public discussion. I urge my colleagues' strong support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.